Talk:William Dummer/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 20:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status and should have my full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 20:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

00:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Early life, "While in England he is reported to have married a cousin" Why "reported to"? Is this in doubt?
 * All that is known about this English episode appears to be sketchy and third-hand. All of the biographers who mention it use some sort of tempering language.  Magic ♪piano 18:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Lieutenant governor, "The assembly also complicated his negotiations" Whose negotiations? Dummers or Shutes? Clarified  Magic ♪piano 18:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Other policies, "tolerating, for example, the selection of Elisha Cooke as speaker of the assembly." Why was this something to "tolerate"? Also, should Cooke's name be linked in the article, rather than just in the image caption? Clarified and linked.  Magic ♪piano 18:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * I don't think that File:GovernorJonathanBelcher.gif has the right tag, at least for the source information provided. A pre-1923 publication tag requires evidence of publication before 1923. If you can prove the artist (James Vaughan) died more than 70 years ago, an author death+70 tag would be appropriate.
 * I've been unable to locate vitals for the artist. I've replaced PD-1923 with PD-US-unpublished, which strikes me as a more plausible license. (PD-old-70 implies that it shouldn't be used for US copyrights.)  Magic ♪piano 14:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * But how do we know the painting was created pre-1893? All the source says is that it was "19th century". I agree that it's likely that it was created pre-1893, but that's not specified by the source. Dana boomer (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm confused by the tagging on File:Fort Dummer Plaque.jpg. The tag is PD-Art, but I don't think a plaque which is nothing more than text can have the visual rights copyrighted. The image description mentions that it was from a postcard, which depending on when the postcard was released, could still be under copyright. I don't know which one of these things (the public domain plaque or the possibly copyrighted postcard, takes precedence.
 * It's an old postcard photograph of the plaque, which arguably has copyrightable elements (the logo in the lower left, mainly). I've set it to use PD-Art|PD-1923.  Magic ♪piano 14:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * But how do we know the postcard was pre-1923? Dana boomer (talk)
 * But how do we know the painting was created pre-1893? All the source says is that it was "19th century". I agree that it's likely that it was created pre-1893, but that's not specified by the source. Dana boomer (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm confused by the tagging on File:Fort Dummer Plaque.jpg. The tag is PD-Art, but I don't think a plaque which is nothing more than text can have the visual rights copyrighted. The image description mentions that it was from a postcard, which depending on when the postcard was released, could still be under copyright. I don't know which one of these things (the public domain plaque or the possibly copyrighted postcard, takes precedence.
 * It's an old postcard photograph of the plaque, which arguably has copyrightable elements (the logo in the lower left, mainly). I've set it to use PD-Art|PD-1923.  Magic ♪piano 14:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * But how do we know the postcard was pre-1923? Dana boomer (talk)
 * Rather than hold things up here while I try to sort out provenance, I've swapped other images for these to whose provenance is a bit more reliable.  Magic ♪piano 01:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Overall, very nice. There are a few minor prose niggles and a couple of image issues that I would like to see resolved before I pass this, so for now I'm placing the article on hold. Let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I think I've answered your issues. Thanks as always for taking the time to review articles, it's much appreciated!  Magic ♪piano 18:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, everything looks good, so I'm passing the article to GA status. Nice work, as always! Dana boomer (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)